MAHESH LADHARAM BHADRA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal corrected the assessment year in its previous order. The appeal in ITA No.2319/M/2022 should be read as pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.
What were the facts?
This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. The original order mistakenly mentioned the assessment year as 2005-06 instead of 2014-15.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was a clerical error in the assessment year mentioned in a prior ITAT order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Bare perusal of the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal in in case of Shri Mahesh Ladharam Bhadra shows that there is a mistake apparent on record as to the assessment year to which the appeal in question pertains. Appeal bearing ITA No.2319/M/2022 decided vide order (supra) pertains to A.Y. 2014-15 wherein it is inadvertently written as of A.Y. 2005-06. So ITA No.2319/M/2022 be read of A.Y. 2014-15. Corrigendum is accordingly issued to be integral part of the order (supra).
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
